* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:40:19 +0300
> Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > With CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU read_lock(tasklist_lock) doesn't imply
> > rcu_read_lock(),
>
> I'm suspecting that we have other code which assumes that read_lock,
> write_lock and spin_lock imply rcu_read_lock().
>
> I wonder if there are any sane runtime checks we can put in there to
> find such problems.
we usually caught them via the DEBUG_PREEMPT checks on PREEMPT_RT: stuff
that has such implicit reliance tends to use smp_processor_id() along
the way and that gets flagged if the non-preemptability guarantee of
spin_lock() vanishes.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
